Gurpreet Singh, a.k.a. Harneet Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURPREET SINGH, a.k.a. Harneet Singh,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72539
Agency No. A095-559-598
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72539 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Singh did not
establish past persecution because he was not arrested, detained, or mistreated in
India. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial
evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Singh failed to establish a well-
founded fear of persecution because his fear of being targeted was speculative, see
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003), and Singh failed to show
that his father’s negative experience was part of a pattern of persecution closely tied
to him, see Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Because Singh failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he
did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Dinu v.
Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim
because Singh failed to establish it was more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to India. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --